CVE-2020-26834
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedSAP HANA Database, version - 2.0, does not correctly validate the username when performing SAML bearer token-based user authentication. It is possible to manipulate a valid existing SAML bearer token to authenticate as a user whose name is identical to the truncated username for whom the SAML bearer token was issued.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceSAP HANA 2.0 contains a username validation flaw in SAML bearer token-based authentication. Due to incorrect handling of username truncation, an attacker can manipulate a valid SAML bearer token to authenticate as a different user whose name matches the truncated version of the intended user's username.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.00CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check SAP HANA database versionQuery the version using SQL: SELECT VERSION FROM M_DATABASE; or check via SAP HANA cockpit/administration consoleAffected if Version is 2.00 (specifically version 2.00, not newer patch levels with fixes)
-
Verify SAML authentication is configuredCheck SQL: SELECT * FROM M_SAML_PROVIDERS; or inspect SAML configuration in SAP HANA cockpit under Security > SAMLAffected if SAML providers are configured and active in the SAP HANA environment
-
Confirm SAML bearer token authentication is enabledQuery: SELECT * FROM M_AUTHENTICATION_USERS WHERE PROVIDER_TYPE = 'SAML'; or check SAP HANA cockpit SAML settings for bearer token usageAffected if SAML bearer token-based authentication is enabled for any user
-
Examine username mapping configuration in SAML providerReview SAML provider settings for name ID attribute mapping: SELECT * FROM M_SAML_PROVIDERS WHERE NAME_ID_FORMAT = 'urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:emailAddress' or similar truncation-prone formatsAffected if Username mapping relies on attributes that may be truncated (such as email addresses or long identifiers) rather than exact unique identifiers
A user is affected if running SAP HANA version 2.00 with SAML bearer token authentication enabled where username truncation in the SAML name ID mapping could cause authentication collisions between different users.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply the relevant SAP security patch for CVE-2020-26834 and review SAML authentication configuration to ensure proper username handling and validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-26834 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-26834 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data